General Discussion

Some weeks ago I wrote to our MP, It was to do with parking tickets issued by the new machines that are being used in place of the older type machines that do not require your registration number ( VRM).

I noticed on the ticket were the words, "NOT TRANSFERABLE". Now does anyone on here have any idea exactly what is meant by those two words?

The MP has not replied, so I looked on line and see that our MP is almost the worst out of over 600 MP's for replying to emails. What does that say about our MP?

It is a offence to transfer the ticket to another vehicle, so you buy a ticket for two hours but after 45 mins you return to your car and leave the parking place 1.25 hours left you play the good samaritan and give it to a driver just entering the car park thats when it becomes a offence the ticket is not transferable.  Most tickets you purchase to park have those words on them and you can be issued with a FPN if you ignore the warning, and a lot of drivers fall foul of this regulation.

That is exactly why I am asking our MP---Is it a money making scam? FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice) is issued by the police or by a local authourity where a bylaw has been violated. PCN (Penalty Charge Notice) is issued by a local authority, usually for a parking violation. PCN very similar in name to the other PCN (Parking Charge Notice) is an invoice from a private parking company, like those crook's that operate at Sainbury's and the Coop here in Dawlish. Beware of ghost tikets from them. I do remember someone on here claiming they have never had a ticket in their life. Maybe the oportunity to get one is on the horizon. Oh! they are the dirty operators at Sainbury's and the Coop.

I have never had a ticket its not rocket science just abide by the law park legally dont speed etc etc. Its not a money making scam its in the terms and conditions of most car parks when you purchase a ticket.  Sainsburys have to have conditions for parking as do motorway services and they are normaly maximum stay ,why because otherwise no one would ever move, take the Coop it would turn into a residents car park for those like me living in the town centre with no parking. So life is simple if it says 2hr max stay dont stay for more, if your ticket expires in 2 hrs put a reminder on your phone, double yellows stay of them, max speed 30 dont exceed it etc etc if you break the rules expect a ticket 

Why is it an offence to transfer your ticket? they say that by transfering a ticket it makes the ticket invalid---Why if there is still credit left on it.

Just like leatash is sticking to the rules/regulations/law/directions,or so he/she say's, so must authorities.

There is nothing in law that says you cannot transfer your ticket, so why do the authorities say you can't, that is the scam.

Another point. No change given is on many machines, now I do know the reason for that. But fancy going into a shop to buy goods which cost a £1 but you only have a fiver.????

You cant transfer your ticket because its in the terms and conditions that you agree to when you enter the car park. All car parks owned and run by local authorities are the same and these regulations are allowed by a act of parliament so its perfectly legal. So to verify you enter a car park and by purchasing a ticket you agree to the terms and conditions one of which is the ticket is non transferrable if you dont like the terms and conditions dont park there. These terms and conditions will stand up in court there have been lots of cases that have gone to the high cort and the Authorities always win.

leatash, don't you know the difference between on and off street parking? I only mentioned Sainsbury's and the Coop to explain the difference between a FPN, a PCN and the other PCN 

What Act of parliament are you talking about and what cases are you also talking about? I am sure we would all like to know.

The same terms and conditions apply Devon County for on street Teighnbridge for car parks these terms and conditions came into force when parking was decriminalised by a act of parliament, as you will know parking illegaly used to be a criminal offence And believe me i more than most know the difference between on and off street parking. 

leatash,  Who made those terms and conditions and are they legal terms and conditions?I have my doubts. Where in law does it say you cannot transfer a ticket, and for what purpose if it was there is it for. There is in most cases a law to cover everything. My take rightly or wrongly, putting those two words on a parking ticket, is to give authorities an indirect way of raising extra revenue. Now that is illegal for on street parking purposes. If you have another reason why an on street parking ticket cannot be transfered, then please let me know, so that I can anylise it and see if it fits your reasons. You have raised an issue that the same terms apply to Devon County Council and Teignbridge District Council, but you did not give a reason why the same terms apply. Now Teignbridge can do it because they can do whatever they like with the money raised from parking in their car parks. But Devon County Council is a different kettle of fish because they cannot do exactly what they like, (although they try too) hoping that no one will notice their wrong doing. Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, will tell you exactly what on street raised parking revenue can be used for. Parking charges for instance must only be set at a level where too much of a revenue raised income is not generated. But off street parking can be set as they like. But, and here is the but, because both authorities try to work in partnership, they try and keep their charges on the same level. I will be very interested to see what you have to say on this subject.

A hobby of mine because of my background is fighting tickets issued for on road and of road offences.  The terms and conditions came into force as i have already explained when parking was decriminalised and put in the hands of civilian authorities prior to decrim the Police controlled on street parking. Now all the info is in the bill that was passed at decrim about 6,000 plus pages.  So up to date have not lost a case against a civilian authority but would not take on a not transferable case its already been tried and failed at great cost.  My personal view is you purchase a ticket and in essence rent the parking space for 1 or 2 hours BEAR WITH ME  so if you leave the space early the rent has been payed so why not hand the ticket to another driver. Because the terms and conditions dont allow you to do this the space is rented two three four times because folk leave early now i think this is wrong and it is but civil law is complex and up to date the not transferable rules apply and are enforced. 

Can one of you explain please why it is that in some car parks you take a ticket when you go in and then pay whatever amount is due for the amount of time you have stayed in the car park when you leave, whereas for other car parks you pay at the beginning of your stay for, say, 2 hours, even if you only use the space for 1 hour?  

leatash, You keep refering to the terms and conditions, what terms and conditions, where can they be found? You also mention a bill, what bill? And where in that bill can it be found?

And to Lynne.

Usually you pay when you go out because that car park is usually manned. If it wasn't manned, chaos could pursue if someone did not have the means to get out, (No cash, No card, No nothing) so the attendant would help you out.

Pay as you enter is so that they do not need an attendant on site, but they still have ceo's stalking to see who has over run their stay. Some off street car parks have cameras but not all to see what is going on at various levels if it is a multistore car park. Local athorities are not permitted to enforce anything with cameras, whether by CCTV or ANPR.

Unless we know whether it is a privately owned car park or a local authority owned car park, I cannot comment any further.

Sorry but I have been in some car parks whereby you take a ticket as you go in and the barrier rises so that you can do so.

Then, when you wish to leave you find the nearest paying machine within the car park to where your car is parked and pay the amount required. Then you take your ticket that has now been through the paying machine and then when you reach the barrier you insert it and the barrier rises and off you go.

A variation on that is number plate recognition when you enter the car park. When you wish to leave you type in your reg. number into the machine and it tells you how much to pay. You pay the amount and then when you get to the barrier your reg number is recognised and the barrier rises letting you leave.  

No staff needed.

So I ask again - why do some car parks operate on a pay for as long as you actually stay basis whilst others operate a pay for as long as you think you might be staying? (which might turn out to be shorter or longer than you anticipated).  

Well if i give that information my services will no longer be required will they as you will all know how to get rid of that annoying ticket the answers are in my posts but you will have to do a few weeks reading.  As already mentioned all this stems from the decrim of parking and the introduction of civilian enforcement and that didnt happen without legislation a act of parliament. Thats it finished on the subject.

In my opinion, leatash is a fraudster. He has produced nothing of any substance or any proof of the facts he purports to be there. I have asked him several questions and he has answered none of them.

Very suspicious in my mind. How can anyone know of his services if you tell us nothing about yourself or how to contact you.

Lynne asked a question, I tried to answer it in the best way I could. I did not know who was operating those car parks that Lynne was refering too. There are many types of off street car parks. leatash made no comment on Lynnes request, is that because he knows nothing so he has decided to finish with with this debate.

Confirmed, that writing "Not transferable" on a parking ticket is not enforceable. So if you wish to be a good samaritan, feel free to pass your unexpired ticket to someone else. Even if you use a machine where you have to punch in your reg number. 

BUT HOW MANY WILL? And more to the point, how many will accept an unexpired ticket? 

It was/is a scam from the day it started.

In my opinion the local councils use the pay and display machines on the basis that there is more chance of being able to make more money from people who overstay. More so in a location where people are enjoying themselves on holiday and getting back to the car on time is not their first priority.

I would say that they were losing money because people who were leaving were offering their unexpired tickets to people arriving. So they spent OUR money to buy the new machines so:-

1) The ticket would be identified to the original car and allow the fine to be imposed.

2) They now have parking ticket machines that allow credit card ticket purchases.

3) Totally confuse quite a lot of people on how to purchase a ticket!

Interesting article:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4835050/Parking-firm-took-lawyer-85-fine-lost.html

Majorp - where was this confirmed please. Would be interested to read more. 

Diana Mond

There is nothing in the TRO that say's you cannot transfer your ticket. If it is not in the TRO then it cannot be enforced, no matter what it say's on the ticket.

You cannot do certain things and those certain things have to be in the TRO, if they are not there, then you can do it. For instance; if you get a ticket for parking under the conker tree on the lawn and that is not in the TRO to make it an offence, then if you were to challege it, you would win.

There is no code for that offence, althought they might try and use the code for an invalid ticket, but how they will prove that is debatable.

And thirdly, there is nothing in the RTRA 1984 that say's you cannot transfer your ticket.

Keep your eye on the minutes of Devon County Council meetings not the rubbish you get from DTC.

You can get all of this information online if you know where to look and more importantly, know what you are looking for.

Thanks for the info majorp. Could you please post a link to the info for us to all have a read. Thanks. 

(7) Any Parking Device or Permit issued in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Article shall remain the property of the Council and Parking Devices or Permit shall not be transferable between vehicles and shall be valid only at the Parking Place in respect of which the Parking Device or Permits was issued unless the Parking Device or Permits expressly provides that it may be transferred between Parking Places (8) The Council may reserve in any Parking Place such spaces as it may from time to time determine for the exclusive use of persons who have previously paid such charge as the Council may determine.    And thats in the TRO.

https://www.devon.gov.uk/trafficorderssearch.htm

If you do find that it is an offence to transfer your ticket, then please let me know.

Happy hunting to you all

leatash, Pray tell me what TRO you were looking at, as it should have been the latest consolidation order made on the 2nd May 2017. All other orders have been revoked. And where in that order you refer too, did you find what you have posted on this site?

I have found the answer to my question above and once again leatash is misleading readers to this forum. On the 2nd September 2017 you wrote:- "The same terms and conditions apply Devon County for on street Teighnbridge for car parks these terms and conditions came into force when parking was decriminalised by a act of parliament, as you will know parking illegaly used to be a criminal offence And believe me i more than most know the difference between on and off street parking. Civil parking enforcement came into being in May 2008. And if you think you know more about road traffic than most, then think again, you have already made a glaring blunder.

So if you look and Devon's TRO, then you will find that the same conditions do not apply for on and off street parking. You have been looking at Teignbridge District Council TRO for off street car parks which is a different ball game than for on street parking and there is a lawful reason for that. 

So if you are trying to defend a parking ticket for someone (poor people to have you to try and defend them if you are going to use the wrong TRO in your defence case for them) You would lose everytime.

What is the difference between on and off street disabled bays?

Thanks for the link majorp. 

A read of

Section 25 of Part A. 

Section 25 of part A reads:- 25 The initial charge is payable on the leaving of a vehicle in a parking place referred to in schedule 5 and is the appropriate payment specified in corresponding tariff of appendix C to purchase a ticket from a pay and display ticket machine or a payment made by means of a mobile phone or device to cover the anticipated length of stay subject to the maximum stay permitted at that parking place.

So where does it say, "by those that bought them"?

You see, that's where you're going wrong majorp. You're being too literal. 

It clearly says that the charge for parking is payable when you leave your vehicle and you purchase a ticket from a machine. 

Sorry to disagree, but it's black and white. 

Diana Mond

I thought we were talking about the transfer of the ticket, not who bought it. What you are saying is this. My friend who is not the driver buys a ticket and passes it on to me and that is not allowed according to some on this forum, Is that what you are telling everyone.

Hi majorp. What the TRO is telling everyone is that when you leave the vehicle that you or your driver has parked in a Pay & Display car park, one of you has to buy a ticket from the machine. Either using cash, card or telephone. 

Therefore a ticket bought by someone who has parked a different vehicle in said car park can't buy a ticket for (or transfer it to) another vehicle. It's black and white. 

I sincerely hope you're not going to get as aggressive with me as you have with Leatash. 

Diana Mond

How many more times, I am not talking about car parks. The situation with car parks are materialy different than parking on the road and are controlled by different LA's. In 2008 when civil enforcement started here in Devon, There was an agreement between the County (The only authority that could apply for CPE powers) and the District Councils. As well as each District enforcing their own car parks, they could also enforce the roads in their area. That came to an end in 2014 and each District enforces their own car parks and the County enforces all roads with a few exceptions, A30,A38 and military roads on Dartmoor and I believe one in Topsham.

Now before we go any further with this charade, it would be better to know what TRO you are looking at. Who made it? The dateit was made and any reference to it, point out where others can reference it.

You quoe earlier "Section 25 part A" when I checked it out ,you were quoting from a Teingbridge TRO, when you should have been looking at DCC TRO and quoting from that.

I also asked in an earlier post if you knew the difference between an off street Disabled bay and an on street one, so farno one has come back with an answer.

Now, if you go back to the begining of this thread, the fundamental question was, "I noticed on the ticket ( and I also should have said for on street parking) were the words, "NOT TRANSFERABLE". Now does anyone on here have any idea exactly what is meant by those two words?" What is it's purpose? Please try to answer those two questions and forget the rest. Devon County Council has been asked to clarify and you will remember that I also asked our MP to get more information about it, so far I have heard zilch from her.

I'm sorry majorp, but the section quoted is from the Devon County Council TRO. 

I do hope you are refering to this one

https://www.devon.gov.uk/documents-www9.pdf?url=trafficorders/browse.asp&url=22756

Section 25 part A makes no mention of not being able to transfer a ticket.

Can you cut and paste that section, so that we will all know for definite that you have the right section.

I suppose it is all about interpretation.

I cannot see where it say's the ticket is not transferable, but I can see that father xmas will give you a refund on any remaining credit providing it is no later than the 25th December.

You can't see it. I can see it. The law can see it. It's probably best to leave it at that. 

I am like a dog with a bone.

Perhaps Diana Mond could answer this question.

For what reason do they have "Not Transferable" on the ticket?

To make it clear to the person buying the ticket that if they do hand over their ticket, then the person receiving it will have breached the DCC traffic regulations order. Obviously it also makes the person receiving the ticket aware of this fact. 

That does not answer the question. Read it again.

Perhaps I should have asked first. You claim that it is written into the TRO that you cannot transfer a parking ticket? If it is there, why is it there, what is it's purpose, what are they achieving by it?

Excuse me majorp, but I hope that you're not getting as aggressive with me as you were with Leatash. 

I answered the question that you posed, however it seems that you didn't understand your own question. Which I think sums up this whole debate, to be honest with you. 

With regards to your subsequent questions, I don't know why it's written into the TRO (which it clearly is), but can only surmise that its purpose is to ensure that everyone who uses a chargeable parking space has paid for it. Which seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me. 

Without prejudice.

My very first question on this subject was, “I noticed on the ticket were the words, "NOT TRANSFERABLE". Now does anyone on here have any idea exactly what is meant by those two words when it comes to parking tickets? That question was never answered.

There was a reply thus, “It is a offence to transfer the ticket to another vehicle”. Well I didn’t ask whether or not it was an offence, I asked if anyone knew what those two words meant. That person was referring (I think) to an off-street TRO where it could well be an offence if you did give it (Transfer the ticket), to someone else. But it is morally wrong and you only have district councillors to blame for it. Remember it is your money we are talking about not theirs. And I wasn’t talking about off-street car parks either.

I was then sort of given a lecture thus, “I have never had a ticket its not rocket science just abide by the law park legally don’t speed etc etc. Its not a money making scam its in the terms and conditions of most car parks when you purchase a ticket. So that brings me asking, “If it is not a scam, what is it there for when I did not mention off-street car parks?” Your LA are treating you with contempt for making it an offence. And I did mention ghost tickets which attracted no comment and which if you did receive one of those tickets, you may well find it difficult to defend against.

What is the purpose of not having the ability to give an unexpired ticket to someone else for an on street parking bay? There is a code for an offence which some CEO’s have attempted to use,

But it was paid for, albeit by someone else and it was still unexpired.

Until all machines are changed to the new models where you have to punch in the last three digits of your registration number, how would they know you had transferred the ticket. They couldn’t unless they watched you park and then waited until you decided to move and saw you give the ticket to someone else.

I have already pointed out that car parks run by a LA are a different kettle of fish than parking on the road in a designated parking bay. In the Teignbridge TRO, it clearly states, “NOT TRANSFERABLE”. But in the DCC TRO, it says no such thing, although someone is inferring it does by using this from TRO 2017 on street. I have broken that section into component parts to make it easier to understand. “25 The initial charge is payable on the leaving of a vehicle in a parking place referred to in schedule 5 (So you park your vehicle, purchase a ticket and leave the car in a parking place) no mention of “Not Transferable” there. And is the appropriate payment specified in corresponding tariff of appendix C (Nothing there either) to purchase a ticket from a pay and display ticket machine or a payment made by means of a mobile phone or device to cover the anticipated length of stay subject to the maximum stay permitted at that parking place (No mention of “Not transferable” there either. That section only apply’s to the purchase of a ticket for parking, it does not and never can mean you cannot transfer the ticket.

@page { margin: 2cm } td p { margin-bottom: 0cm } p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }

So when someone can answer the question, “What is the purpose of not having the right to give someone else the right to use any unexpired time left on the ticket on street,” Then I will move onto the reason why this transferability is a scam and possibly illegal.

I've answered your last question in my response on 12th September. 

With regards to the TRO, it doesn't explicitly state that tickets are not transferable. However it does explicitly state that when you leave your vehicle you have to purchase a ticket from a machine!  It couldn't be more obvious. 

Diana Mond, You have said," However it does explicitly state that when you leave your vehicle you have to purchase a ticket from a machine!" Where does it say in that statement that you cannot pass that purchased ticket over to someone else?

This is getting very tedious. It says that you have to purchase a ticket from a machine or over the phone! That's all it needs to say! If you don't purchase a ticket from a machine or over the phone, then you are not meeting the terms and conditions for parking in a chargeable parking space. And therefore in breach of the TRO and therefore breaking the law. It's as simple as that. 

I know that you'll never admit that you're wrong , especially if you are who I've been told you are, however your crusade is factually incorrect. This isn't my opinion, it's a fact that's clearly stated in black and white. 

You Diana Mond became tedious some time ago and you have failed to answer the basic question and that is, "what is the purpose of you declaring a parking ticket is "not transferable"? Answer that and you may begin to understand it has no purpose apart from the one you may try and answer. Just trying to make it appear it is not transferable does not really answer anything. Go on answer the purpose of making a ticket not transferable and then I will move onto the next stage of this problem and tell you why it should not be there, even though you think it is.

Anothr thing you may like to consider whilst on this subject. Why is it stated explicitly in an off street parking TRO that a pay and display ticket is "Not Transferable"? when there are no such explicit terms stated anywhere in an on street TRO.

How many times do I need to answer the "basic question"? I've answered it on numerous occasions, as you well know. It's just that you choose not read it, or that it doesn't suit your agenda. Please be assured that you won't wear me down with your aggressive posturing. 

So, for once and for all, the purpose for declaring a ticket is "not transferable", is bound to be to give fair warning to anyone who buys a ticket that giving it to someone else would mean that the recipient had breached the terms and conditions of the TRO. It's as simple as that! Or would you rather that tickets had all of the TRO printed on them? New A4 printers would be needed!

It IS non-transferable, and that's because the TRO says that YOU have to purchase a ticket from a machine or over the phone. To make it clear - YOU (Y.O.U.) , not some Good Samaritan who would otherwise be unwitting without the words "Non Transferable" printed on the tickets!

It's time for another hobby for you. Seriously. 

You have still failed to answer the question, I have read your replies and apart from telling me it is there, you have failed to answer why it is there. What is the underlying purpose of not being able to transfer a parking ticket. And your seriousness on this subject is unforgivable, you appear to answer questions in a way that only suit you and are afraid for want of another word to answer the questions that I ask of you.

What is the purpose of you, or anyone else not having the ability not to transfer a parking ticket to someone else to use? When you understand it's purpose (and I see you failed to answer that question).

I don't want to know any more that it is there, I want you to tell me why it is there. And I promise you that there can only be one feasable purpose. So get your thinking cap on and deal with the question.

Yet more aggression from you! It's totally unnecessary - unless you have temper issues when being shown up to be wrong. I've answered your questions more than enough times for any normal person to take on board. 

As I've written on here already, its purpose is to ensure that the recipient of the donor's largesse doesn't break the terms of the TRO. 

You can't park in a chargeable parking space without paying the charge. For the umpteenth time - it's as simple as that. 

I will put it to you another way. What is the motive behind the terms and conditions of not having the ability to transfer a ticket?

Whatever I or anyone else says, you will disagree unless it fits the conspiracy theory that you no doubt have hidden up your sleeve, and that you're just itching to produce with a flourish and a dramatic "TA-DAAA!". This thread is therefore futile. Factual answers have been provided, you simply don't like them. 

When you purchase the ticket you are entering into an agreement with the conditions laid out for the purchase of said ticket. This is a contract between you and those who have responsibility for the car park and who have decided on what is and is not acceptable in their car park.

If you decide to break the agreement that you entered into when when purchasing the ticket, then it is within the legal right of the car aprk authority to impose their, agreed upon by both parties at time of ticket purchase, penalty.

As to why they do not allow transfer is quite simple, more revenue from the car park.

If a person was unhappy about the limitations on transfer of a ticket that still has unexpired time on it, they could:-

1) Challenge the legality of it through the legal system.

2) Don't park in a car park where the rule applies.

3) Stay in the car park until your ticket expires.

4) Accept it and move on with your life.

Written with respect of all opinions on this thread.

So Diana Mond does not know the motives behind the terms and conditions, pity that, because how can anyone have a meaningful debate on this subject if the prime antagonist to it does not provide answers to questions and continues to go around in circles declaring that answers have been given.

So I will ask one more time.

What is the motive behind a LA not giving the motorist the right to transfer his or her unexpired ticket?

I do hope that is a simple enough question to answer and if you have no idea what the motive is, I shall not be surprised.

Simple, money, money, money.

I have to agree with DEEDOODLE except on one point. I have already mentioned that there is a difference between car park conditions and on street parking conditions.

Car parks run by local authorities can do virtually what they like with income raised either by parking charges or income from PCN's. But on street is another matter as to what is done with the income raised and how it is used. All that income is ring fenced and can only be used for set down in law purposes. Whereas, the income raised by whatever means in car parks is not ring fenced and can be used for almost any purpose, that is why I have said it is Teignbridge district councillors that are to blame for allowing tickets to be not transferable. Same applies to DCC councillors but the way they generate income is not only debateable but could be (and I will find out soon) illegal.

With all due respect would the two of you give it a rest.  Just agree to disagree for crying out loud.

With all due respect Brooklyn Bridge, don't read the thread if it doesn't interest you. 

Brooklyn Bridge  It sounds to me that if you knew of some local authority was breaking the law, you would turn a blind eye. Not for me I'm afraid. There are two cases on going at the moment (there may be others) where it could cost DCC millions and that cost will eventually land in your lap. Remember Government and local authorities can only spend money that you give them. No wonder care homes are closing, libraries are threatened, schools are struggling, etc, etc. All because apathy is endemic, they have to foot the bills of their wrong doings first. But who cares? Not you I hear, you just go on crying out loud. I won't hear you.

No doubt tickets are not intended to be transferable so that more income is raised. Not a bad thing so long as it is spent on public works or amenities and not on pay rises for local authority fat cats.

Lisa, you said, "No doubt tickets are not intended to be transferable so that more income is raised." You have hit the nail bang on the head. I did try and explain early on in this debate that there is a difference between OFF STREET parking (car parks) and on street parking. Just as there is a difference between OFF STREET local authority owned car parks and car parks owned by Tesco, Morrison's, service stations, etc,etc. To most people a parking place is a parking place, but there is a world of difference between all parking places I have mentioned above. Some people say they do not get tickets (It is not roocket science not to get one) I did mention (ghost ticket's) and warned that person making such claims as to not receiving any tickets to be careful, they are becoming more prevelent especially in the private sector but it is going on in the local authority sector aswell. And it is difficult to prove (In most cases) that you did not commit a contravention. So everybody beware when you are accused of illegal parking. There are rules in every game and there are laws telling us what we can and cannot do and that applies to us all. I would not be at all surprised if money raised from on street parking has somehow filtered through to assisting the cost of providing cycle paths, even though most of the money to supply cycle paths come from Europe. If it could be proved that it was, then that would be illegal without a shadow of doubt. There are only certain things that money raised from on street parking can be used for (It is ring fenced money) and one of the first things provided in the list is to provide more OFF STREET parkig if there is a need. Does it happen? You only have to look at the Barton car park to see how many spaces have disappeared since it was created. But no one complained that OFF STREET parking places are disappearing. I have emphasised OFF STREET, so that no one can be in any doubt that we are not dealing with them. It is only on street.

TA-DAAAAA! 

Surplus revenue from on street car parking can be spent on cycle paths but only after the council has concluded that the provison of further off street parking is either unnecessary or undesirable. See the 1984 road traffic regulation act section 55.  Obviously such a conclusion would be ridiculous and I think the source for the money for cycle paths should be itemised and made public.

Majorp, I'm sorry if that went over your head. 

Diana Mond, don't worry about it, most of what you have said in the past, went over my head. It was only towards the end of this thread that someone else got to where I wanted to be, raising revenue and making money. There could not be any other reason for not permitting the transfer of a ticket, and I did try and explain the difference between on and off street parking, which would allow one to place resticictions on what you could do with your parking ticket but not the other. Operators of off street parking are not so restricted as on street operators are, and section 55 RTRA 1984 makes it an illegal excercise. I have just seen a letter, suposedly written by Stuart Hughes, cabinet member for transport on DCC and he knew nothing about the letter when challenged. And that was because an officer had made a boo boo on the dispesation permits by over charging for a permit, and I believe they are expecting Mr Hughes to take the flack. Whether it will happen I don't know, either way it will cost DCC a fair ammount of money, when the sh1t hits the fan. So could that same officer have made a boo,boo by allowing "Not Transferable" to be printed on the on street parking tickets. I do not know the answer to that, but as always, the truth will out in the end.

2  Regulatory framework 

5.  Local authorities have long been responsible for managing on-street parking, as set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. In terms of enforcement, prior to 1991 the police and traffic wardens were responsible for compliance and income from fixed penalty notices went to the Exchequer. The Road Traffic Act 1991 significantly changed the way that on-street parking restrictions were enforced. The 1991 Act made it mandatory for London boroughs and optional for other local authorities to take on the civil enforcement of parking contraventions. The changeover started in London in 1993 and outside London a few years later. The Act also allowed local authorities to keep the income generated from issuing Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).[3]

6.  The Traffic Management Act 2004 ("the TMA") now provides the legal framework for parking and in 2008, when regulations under the TMA came into effect, it replaced the Road Traffic Act 1991 as the primary piece of legislation covering parking. The TMA and the associated regulations gave to English authorities outside London many civil enforcement powers already available to authorities in London, giving greater consistency across the country.[4] In accordance with the TMA, the DfT produced statutory guidance to local authorities on the civil enforcement of parking contraventions, in which it made clear that local authorities:

• should not use parking enforcement as a tool for raising revenue; My under lining and emphasis.
• should not set targets for the number of tickets issued;
• are encouraged to allow officers to use more discretion over when a ticket is issued - including using verbal warnings for minor contraventions - and are strongly advised to only use wheel-clamping against those who persistently evaded their penalty charges; and
• should only use cameras to enforce parking rules where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and the use of a Civil Enforcement Officer is not practical. Approved devices should not be used where permits or exemptions (such as resident permits or Blue Badges) not visible to the equipment may apply.[5]

The DfT has also produced more detailed operational guidance to local authorities on parking policy and enforcement. There has been several court cases where the raising of extra revenue above and beyond what is required, even one case that went to the royal courts that heard the arguements and the judges ruled it was illegal. The law is explicit - parking charges are about managing congestion, not raising revenue.

Do you know why local authority owned car parks cannot be enforced by ANPR cameras but car parks such as Tesco's and other supermarkets and other private land owned car parks can? There is only one answer, so please don't drive around the mulberry bush in trying to find another answer or trying to tell others something that is not there.

Which local authority car parks use ANPR?

Please be a good chap and provide a non-aggressive answer. 

Diana Mond, We can now all see what you are like. I asked a smple question and instead of answering the question you ask me another question, so I will do the same on this occasion And before you get riled up about that, why are there ANPR cameras in some local authority car parks if they cannot be used for enforcement purposes? And here is another question that you may like to answer------- What makes you think that majorp is a male? Females can do the job of informing others, as well as males.

Here is a little something else to occupy your mind unless you are already in possession of the answer. What has four, sometimes nine and never five? 

1. I don’t know why. 

2.  Based upon whom I’ve been told you are. 

3. I don’t know the answer to your riddle. 

Now which local authority car parks use ANPR?

the civil enforcement of parking contraventions general amendment no.2 regulations 2015 amended the civil enforcement of parking general regulations 2007 so that penalties based on video evidence can no longer be sent by post (there are 4 exceptions) but the video ban is only in relation to on street parking contraventions and not relevant to council run off street car park contraventions. is there another set of regulations relevant to off street car parks majorp?

Plod, there is. local authorities can only use an approved device, and unfortunately an ANPR camera is not an approved device for parking in local authority car parks. They can be used on private land and for speeding purposes by the police.

The problem is, not many people know that, local authority officers know that many people don't know that, so officers will get away with anything until they are found out. They will deny everything right up to the wire and if the person that is accusing them of wrong doing, sticks to their guns, (but it does involve an awful lot of research to know that you are right before you start any challenge), that is when they know that you know more than they do, and they back down.

Having said that, ANPR cameras are being used in local authority car parks, but they cannot be used for enforcement purposes. What they do is use them for management purposes, (you must have seen neon boards around different parts of Exeter) those boards tell the motorist whether a certain car park is full or partly empty.and when they find that there are many people exceding their expired time parking ticket, they send their army around and issue as many tickets as they can, (that means they are not being enforcced by the cameras, but by CEO's on foot. So that is how local authorities can get aroung the law that they can only use an unapproved device for parking purposes.

Just had this arrive by email.

I asked a local authority several questions about the transfer of parking tickets, You do not need to know what questions I asked or who the local authority was.

I can only assume that to place Not Transferable on a purchased ticket was a mistake and someone somewhere should be held accountable for that error. I will follow this up however.

This was a FOI request.

Please find below the extra responses/clarification to your enquiry.

The question should have been after I pointed you to the section that concerned me. Is there any reason why parking tickets that you issue, are not transferable? - It damages the income to the Council. Ultimately, if the tickets were transferable this would lead to a loss of income which in turn would result in the car park tariffs having to be increased.

I don't know whether or not you pre-empted my question. if you did, is the answer you have given at 5, still applicable? - Yes.

I am trying to establish if the section I directed you too at 2 in my questions are the same as printed in an on street TRO. - There is no contravention for displaying a transferred ticket in an on street parking place.

So there you have it. Now many of you will not have the nerve to transfer your unexpired tickets (on street). Remember it does not apply to car parks off street. It will depend on whether or not enough of you can put pressure on your district councillor to get things changed for the better for changing the off street parking tickets so that they too can be transfered without any fear of doing so.

there are many types of anpr and if it complies with the civil enforcement of parking contraventions approved devices order 2007 and been certified by the secretary of state (via VCA) it can be used for on and off street enforcement purposes. an example of a anpr VCA certified camera

https://www.sea.co.uk/transport/products/roadflow-flexi/

Majorp, which local authority car parks use ANPR?

You’re now talking about your FOI request to Wiltshire County Council, why them and not Devon??

the answer dianamond would require many foi requests as local authorities don't advertise their use. an foi to every local authority would also be needed to find out if the anpr they use is certified as an approved device to allow postal penalty fines. majorp is correct if the anpr is not certified (approved). certification is done on behalf of the secretary of state of the dft by the VCA.

Thanks for that Plod. Do you happen to know whether any local-local authorities use them? Please don’t make an FOI request to find out though, as I wouldn’t want my Council Tax bill to go up any more! :)

Some local councils in devon, cornwall and somerset have anpr cctv but as far as i'm aware none use it to enforce off street parking. mainly because the cost to do so would be more than the income it generates. less and less contraventions occur off street these days with pay on exit or pay by phone systems.

Thanks Plod. That just about confirms the assumption that I’d made re local authority use of ANPR hereabouts. 

Just waiting for majorp to answer my other question now. 

According to Devon CC meetings they are currently planning to get rid of on street free limited waiting places county wide and replace them with pay and display places. Why would they do this other than to raise revenue? Using parking regulations to raise revenue is not lawful according to Justice Lang. Search the court case Attfied v Barnet.

Lisa, Councillor Clatworthy is to blame for this. He is the cabinet member for Finance. He was the one that pushed for and succeeded in getting on street parking meters in Dawlish, he has been the one that has been pushing for more on street parking controls in towns where there is very little control and very little congestion problems ----but he will not admit to any of it. In fact when I challenge him once about it in person on street, he denied all knowledge that it was him that he was the master mind behind it. 

And as for Diana Mond, it appears to me that there is no need for me to answer any more questions. The brain power from that person seems quite adeqate to provide answers, without others having to give them.  As for ANPR camera use in local authority car parks, you can find that out yourself and if you read properly, I have already told you how ANPR is used in LA car parks.

I’ll take that as a compliment majorp. Disappointing though that someone who always asks questions seems so reluctant to answer other people’s questions himself. 

For anyone interested, from Torbay council after I asked and have asked them more questions on the subject of the car parks they own.

4. Is there ANPR cameras installed in any of the car parks that you own?

Yes.

The ANPR cameras are used as a management system and not to enforce.

Well, they are telling porkies, because Berry Head car park is owned by torbay but that car park is enforced by ANPR.

Why do local authorities keep on telling porkies? They get found out eventually and the cost of putting things right is a Burden on the tax payer and not making requests via FOI as someone has sujested. 

I have sent Torbay council a letter I obtain from the Department of Transport.that letter has been passed to their legal department and it has been over a month without a reply. If delays in making replies promply by many loacl authorities that I have had the  pleasure to deal with, tells me they are snookered.

I will wait and see.

Now for the good news. After not receiving any confirmation from Anne Marie Morris MP which I told everyone what I had done at the begining of this topic, I have finally received a letter which was delivered to the wrong address and opened in error. I might add--DONKEYS! because it clearly stated my name on the address. But I think that because it was in a House of Commons envelope, someone wanted to be noisy

However the previous delay was because she was waiting for a reply from Teignbridge District Council.

I will not bore you all, with all the contents of the letter, there is good news and bad, but just to say, "As from end of Semptember/early October, the machines in off street car parks will have the machines modified by removing the pad where you are required to punch in the last three digits of your VRN". The reason they started this was to protect people who had received a parking ticket (PCN) for not displaying a valid parking, because on shutting the door, the ticket would either flip over or fall off the dash where the ceo could not see it. the proof that you did have a valid pay for ticket, (If someone took the trouble to appeal) was to show the ticket to the authority controlling the car park that the ticket married upwith the details on the PCN. So now the problem is for both sides, is this, That whilst the ticket will still have printed on it "Not Transferable", how would anyone no if you did? and if your ticket fell off the dash or flipped over so that it could not be read, making it invalid. How could you prove that it was valid? the answer would be you couldn't, so unless you had a valid reason to appeal on other grounds, there would be no point intrying to appeal a ticket that could not be seen by the CEO or that it had flipped over and could not be read, also making it invalid. So here is a little tip. Place a small piece of blue tack on the dash and stick your ticket to that, and if you have still got unexpired time left on your ticket, it is your choice what you do with it.

I do hope that I have explained things clearly enough. Just be careful how you use the tickets. 

Now for the on street ones.

Lynne, You asked:

Can one of you explain please why it is that in some car parks you take a ticket when you go in and then pay whatever amount is due for the amount of time you have stayed in the car park when you leave, whereas for other car parks you pay at the beginning of your stay for, say, 2 hours, even if you only use the space for 1 hour?

I cannot really answer it, other than it is convienient for some to use a different method to charge for parking. I recently visited Berry Head as I believe there is a problem on how that car park is operated. There is an ANPR camera that takes a photo of your number plate on entry. The camera is connected to one of two machines at the exit. It is a touch screen and you follow instructions on the screen to find out how much you will be charged on exit. The point of that system is to catch people out. As it say's on the entrance sign, (pay on exit) people do not bother to look at the charges especially if the only parking spaes left are at the other end of the car park. Shock horror when you leave and find out how much you have to pay. The name of the company operating this car park comes from Manchester, they are called "Parkwith ease".

Personally, I visit Berry Head to enjoy the scenery and have a nice cup of tea and slice of cake at the lovely cafe there. But each to their own. 

I think that the ANPR system in use there is great (not that these things overly excite me!!!). To say that “people do not bother to look at the charges” is somewhat condescending. Some might not, but I’m pretty confident that the vast majority do. They might not necessarily like the scale of the charges, but that’s the way it is. 

This is just a quick update. There are many issues that I have been dealing with that involves DCC and TDC.

I think TDC is finished with, as they are going to remove the need for motorists to have to punch in their VRN, which makes it easier to transfer an unexpired off street pay and display ticket.

But DCC have three problems to deal with and they are struggling.

(1) transferability of on street parking tickets. They have to give a satisfactory reason why it is printed on the ticket and so far they have no answer.

(2) over charging for dispensation permits and how they are going to go about refunding the many thousands of applicacants that obtained a permit.

And

(3) when is a road not a road?

The road leading into the County Hall, Exeter, according to the council is not a road, but I have all the evidence to prove that it is. There is a barrier across that road which is illegaly placed. (there will be more on that subject later) as at the moment there is case going to court over it and I do not want to prejudice anything.

As for Diana Mond, as much as she enjoyed her cup of tea and a slice of cake, she may well find out later that she paid the wrong people for parking. I have yet to have it confirmed.Torbay legal department are dealing with it and I think they are struggling.

Just a quick update but I still have not all the answers I require.

Diana Mond claims:- "I think that the ANPR system in use there is great (not that these things overly excite me!!!). To say that “people do not bother to look at the charges” is somewhat condescending. Some might not, but I’m pretty confident that the vast majority do. They might not necessarily like the scale of the charges, but that’s the way it is." One of the questions requested of me by Diana Mond was "which local authority car parks use ANPR? Well now you know, the one at Berry Head.

Well I have confirmation that the car park at Berry Head is NOT a private car park. Never has been. So Diana Mond has been paying the wrong people to park for the time period of the parking.

The TRO was signed on the 25th February 2013 by Torbay Borough Council and it has never been revoked. So that means that any money collected by Parkingwithease ltd (they are now enforcing the car park and before them Premier Park) has been collected illegally. Although I must say the director of the Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust still believes he has full authority to enforce this car park how he pleases, bless him.

The off street (parking places) order 2013 was rescinded/revoked on 5 April 2016.

The Berry Head car park is NOT a local authority car park. The land is leased to the Torbay Coast & Countryside Trust, who themselves (not the local authority) use part of the land as a car park. That car park is enforced on their behalf by Parkingwithease Ltd. 

Once again Diana Mond has got it wrong. Whether or not the order was revoked in 2016, the land on which the car park sits is still regulated land and that land cannot be enforced under contract law (which it is now).

In an open letter I have obtained from a minister for transport it spells it out adequately that once a local authority has set aside land for use as a car park, it will always remain that way and will always be regulated until the law changes it.

Only the local authority which owns the land on which the car park sits can enforce it, whether they do it themselves or whether they employ someone else to do it for them under their terms and conditions (LA) and not any other conditions. if as you say the order has been revoked, then it is free parking, yipee! No one else can set the conditions to park at Berry Head. I have an official copy of the lease agreement obtained from the land registry and it shows that Berry Head car park is not part of the lease agreement. Which means that the lease holders have no say in the way the car park is operated.

I trust I have explained everything to you.

You have indeed explained in a lot of detail. Whether or not your explanation is correct or a mixture of fact and supposition on your part, remains to be seen. Thank you anyway. 

DianaMond, What parts of it do you think are fact and what parts do you think are supposition.

Be very careful how you answer this as you could (In front of the general public) end up with egg all over your face. Now wouldn't that be terrific for all to see.

Why would that be terrific for all to see? I hope you’re not being threatening.

Do you simply have a built-in dislike for people who politely question your obsession with encouraging people to break the law by parking wherever they like? No wonder you and Martin (R.I.P.) had a “misunderstanding”, if you’re so intolerant of other people’s logic. 

There is nothing to back up your understanding of anything. You doubted what I have stated and all I have done is to ask you two questions, which were what do you think is fact and what do you think is supposition. And what do you do? you try and tell me that I am encouraging others to break the law and I am doing no such thing. So there is another question for you to answer, How am I encouraging others to break the law? Your answer will be very interesting - to me anyway.

The only ones that are breaking the law and they like all criminals, do not like it when they are found out, are those in local government who should know better.

To answer your first question, please read my post at 13:03 today. And then re-read it. 

To answer your second loaded (and once again unnecessarily rude) question, I would point to those posts on here where over the years you have advised people to park on various double yellow lines hereabouts. Or to not put a valid parking ticket on their dashboards, etc. 

R.I.P. Martin. 

Diana Mond, you really are a pillock. You said at 1303hrs today, "Whether or not your explanation is correct or a mixture of fact and supposition on your part, remains to be seen". What are you accusing me of, lying or being economical with the truth? I have only advised others to park on DY's where the law allows. And where have I advised others not to put a valid ticket on their dash boards ,etc. You need to explain yourself and produce the evidence and not make uncoroborated statements. I can assure you I have only advised others to do the right thing, but if there is a loophole, use it, that is what good lawyers do all of the time.

Stop name calling please. 

Im not accusing you of anything other than mixing facts with supposition. 

You definitely have advised people to park on double yellows and to park their cars without a ticket. It’s all here on dawlish.com in black and white. 

Show me where it is?

Can I remind users not to call other users names and not to make accusations about other users please?

I can see this thread descending into a petty argument which would be a shame.

Why is "Diana Mond" even still allowed to post on here, given her previous history of multiple identities, all of which were eventually banned from the forum.  

as i said before Roll on the Zombies 

@burneside, it's not really possible to stop someone signing up again under a new email address.

Good grief, way to hijack an interesting thread!

Why does “Burneside” waste so much energy fantasising about me, When he could put it to much more positive use?

People, is it not time to take a deep breath, then step back and have a good look at the issues being argued here. Is it possible that it has been debated to death, and has now descended into a rather juvenile slagging match? Is is really worth all this energy? I do not believe I know anyone posting on this thread, but please guys, just give it a rest!

Once everyone realises that whatever Diana Mind says is right and everyone else is wrong,  they will sleep a lot better at night.

All hail to thee Mrs. C.

I am back on this subject that I started on 01/10/2017 about "Not Transferable" printed on the purchased parking tickets. Although it did bring in ANPR cameras which are not authorised to be used in local authority car parks for enforcement purposes.

Diana Mond asked somewhere in this thread, why I asked Wiltshire and not DCC about not transferable.

Well, I have asked DCC and they are struggling to give an answer as to what "Not Transferable" exactly means.

So far they have stated, "A pay & display ticket is valid for the parking place for which it was purchased, with appropriate tariffs and maximum stay periods applied".

Also they have said,"If it was Identified that a ticket was being used in a parking place other than that in which it was purchased then contravention code 06 would apply (Parked without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher). The only identifying mark on the ticket is the machine number from where it was purchsed.

So now the question for Diana Mond to answer is this "Where does it say anywhere that if I purchase a ticket to park and had complied with the terms and conditions set out". That I cannot pass that unexpired ticket to someone else to use? So far as stated above, it is valid for the parking place for which it was purchased. There is the date, the expiry time, the purchase time and the machine number. Nothing there to say that another person cannot use an unexpired ticket in that parking place.

What identifying mark is there on a ticket to show that it is invalid other than it being purchased from a particular machine.

If the machine is not working and on the machine you are directed to another machine to buy a ticket, you would not be buying an valid ticket - would you? So what would Diana Mond do in those circumstances?

In my opinion, you’re misinterpreting the term “parking place”.  The way I’ve read it is that it refers to the individual parking space not the whole car park itself. I think that covers all four of your questions...

@majorp-----------as pointed out by plod. Local authorities can enforce off street car parks using anpr if it is an approved device.

Diana Mond Who said anything about car parks? Devon county council only own one off street car park and it is debateable whether it is off street or on street even though it looks like a car park.

And lisa There are no approved devices (cameras) that can be used to enforce car parks. Devon County and all off the districts in Devon have no approved devices to enforce parking.

There is nothing to stop them getting one like this one plod gave as an example.

https://www.sea.co.uk/transport/products/roadflow-flexi/

Majorp, so how are you interpreting the term “parking place”?

On street parking bay

And lisa that device is an approved device for bus lane/gate offences, they could not use it to enforce parking restrictions.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120608000138/http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/tma-part-6-certification-of-approved-devices

Thank you for the clarification. 

ANPR can be used for on and off street parking enforcement so long as the device used meets the technical requirements set by statute. It's not correct to say councils cannot enforce car parks using ANPR.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3486/schedule/made

lisa, that is only possible if they use an approved device ------------THEY HAVE NO APPROVED DEVICE TO USE. They can use ANPR for management purposes only, ie, signs on the road which tell a motorist how many spaces there are a a particular car park are delivered via ANPR which only count the number of spaces available - nothing more.

You need to find out whether or not the Secretary of State for Transport has allowed LA's to use a non approved device.

I can tell you he/she has not.

And further lisa.

Enforcement using Approved Devices 8.9 Traffic Management Act 2004 Regulations give limited powers to authorities throughout England to issue penalty charge notices for contraventions detected solely with a camera and associated recording equipment The Secretary of State must certify any such device. Once certified they may be called an ‘approved device’. Penalty charge notices must not be served by post on the basis of evidence from an approved device other than when vehicles are parked on:

• a bus lane;

• a bus stop clearway or bus stand clearway;

• a Keep Clear zig-zag area outside schools; or

@page { margin: 2cm } p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }

• a red route.

So even if a device is approved, they can only at the moment be used only for the bullet points above.

Have you ever known anyone to get a ticket in Exeter for driving in a bus lane? Well for a start there is no approved device at any bus lane in Exeter to record a contravention. The police do not want to know as if they saw you driving in a bus lane, they don't want to know as it is a civil offence. And they are only interested in criminal offences of their choice anyway.

Majorp I'm not saying they currently have an approved ANPR device to use. I'm saying they could get one and use it to enforce off street car parks.

plod knows this subject far bettter than I and here is the written advice he gave me.

The guidance quoted is not complete. It is missing where it directs you to a footnote which in turn directs you to this amending legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1001/regulation/2/made

Due to the amendment of regulation 10 (the new insertion of para 1A) , on street PCN's can only be served on the basis of an approved device in the 4 circumstances mentioned in the guidance quoted. But the newly inserted para 1A is only relevant to contraventions occurring "on a road" which means enforcement off road in car parks is permitted by ANPR so long as the device is approved by the VCA. Most (if not all) modern day ANPR's are built to VCA approval requirements because the manufacturers main clients are local authorties and there is no demand for unapproved CCTV/ANPR systems.

Lisa, I guess you and plod have got it wrong.

It works like this:- There are all sorts of devices which are used for many different situations, and unless the Secretary of State for Transport certifies any device, it does not become an approved device for enforcement purposes.

Do you understand now? If not I suggest you go back to plod and ask what is a device and what is an approved (certified) device.

And further there are only certain manufacturers that are certified to make an approved device. Which means that if the manufacturer is not on the list. they cannot sell anything as an approved (certified) device.

I will add further.

CEO's carry hand held computor's, the photo's that they take with that hand held cannot be used as evidence because it is not an approved device to do that.

So why do they take photo's of your car if they cannot be used as evidence.Simply to back up the arguements should anyone appeal a parking ticket but not as evidence. that is recorded seperately.

Major P you claimed that ANPR cannot be used to enforce council owned off street car parks. This is not true. ANPR can be used to enforce off street car parks via postal penalty charges if the ANPR device meets the prescribed technical requirements in accordance with this legislation and the VCA formally approve the device.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3486/schedule/made

One such VCA approved ANPR device is manufactured by Videalert

http://videalert.com/civil-traffic-enforcement/

The VCA approved certficate to enforce parking under the TMA 2004 can be viewed by clicking on Videalert in the spreadsheet

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658116/manufacturer.ods

It is evident that councils can enforce off street car park contraventions using a VCA approved ANPR device but when it comes to on street enforcement councils are restricted by law to using it in only 4 prescribed circumstances (bus lanes, bus stops, school keep clear zig zags and red routes).

Whether a council chooses to purchase a VCA approved ANPR device is a different matter altogether but unless they do they cannot use ANPR to enforce on street or off street parking contraventions pursuant to the Traffic Management Act 2004.

As for the cameras used by civil enforcement officers these do not need to be VCA approved devices for the simple fact that the PCN is being served based on the observations of the CEO and not based on a record produced by an approved device. When a CEO serves a PCN there is no legal requirement to take photographs but doing so is recommended by the Secretary of State. It's a good thing. Sometimes they prove the contravention and sometimes they prove the CEO made a mistake.

Plod, Show me which LA in Devon are using ANPR to enforce their car parks, and are they using a device that has been certified by the Secretary of State for Transport?

Obtain the certificate and I will rest my case.

That is a different matter from what I was debating.

My response was to your general claim that ANPR cannot be used to enforce council owned off street car parks. I demonstrated that it is possible.

Perhaps what you meant to say is that no council in Devon is in a position where they can enforce their off street car parks via ANPR due to their ANPR devices (if they have them) not being VCA certified. Such a claim could be correct but you would need to know what ANPR devices (if any) are placed in every single council owned off street car park in Devon and to then research whether those devices are approved by the VCA for parking enforcement pursuant to the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Personally I doubt any council in Devon enforces off street parking contraventions pursuant to the Traffic Management Act 2004 using ANPR since ANPR would not pick up whether a pay & display ticket is on display or has expired. These are the most common off street parking contraventions. Also statutory guidance advises that approved devices should only be used where enforcement is difficult, sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical. Which is why they can be used for no stopping contraventions like bus stops, red routes and school keep clear zig zags. It's difficult for a CEO to write down all the details if a vehicle has stopped where prohibited but on seeing a CEO approach it is driven away.

ANPR is used in Swansea Uni car parks and is tied into the ticket machines a reg is required to obtain a ticket i realise this is not a car park owned by a LA but it demonstrates ANPR could be used in conjunction with pay and display machines.

Plod has demonstrated why ANPR could not be used in LA owned car parks. And to leatash, what could be and what is, are two different things. Swansea Uni is a private car park and the law which covers private car parks, is different than regulated car parks. And before anyone asks. A regulated car park is one owned by a local authority, relevant land is privately owned and the enforcers enforce under contract law and not civil law.

Patrick Troy head of the British Parking Association, (And which many LA's belong too) has been pleading for years with the ministry to change the law so that LA can used ANPR on regulated land. So far he has failed.

Some LA owned car parks allow disabled badge holders to park for free but only with a permit from that local authority. If the LA was allowed to use ANPR in a car park that allowed disabled badge holders to park for free if they had a permit, how could/would a camera be able to pick up, that it was a permit holder and also a disabled badge holder?

majorp The point is that the technology is there to sort out these problems ie cameras distinguish between staff and visitors at Swansea Uni, Motorway Services,etc so so disabled drivers with a permit would be in the daterbase of exempt vehicles. Technology will sort out these problems things for the motorist are changing fast smart motorways that incorporate  speed cameras, miles of road as in Cornwall covered by average speed cameras.  And it wont be long before every parking area on street and car parks are controlled by big brother and the days of the CEO are finished and for me it cant happen fast enough.

Major P I did not demonstrate why ANPR cannot be used in LA owned car parks. I demonstrated that it can be used if VCA approved. It would not be much use for viewing contraventions associated with pay & display ticket details but it could be used for example to enforce code 81 "Parked in  a restricted area in a car park" and other codes such as 70, 74, 89, 91, 92, 80, 86, 90, 93, 95.

What law is it that you believe prohibits LA's from using VCA approved ANPR devices for the purpose of off street civil parking enforcement?

As for pay & display tickets being non transferable, this ultimately depends on how the parking place traffic order is written. If the order prohibits the purchaser of a ticket transfering it to another car park user, then transfering a ticket is a contravention of the order. Tickets that require part of the vehicle registration number to be inputted were introduced to combat the unlawful transfer of tickets as a penalty could be imposed for either displaying an invalid ticket or for not paying the parking charge.

Even if the order does not explicitly prohibit the transfer of pay & display tickets it is still possible that a penalty charge could be served for not paying the parking charge. Most orders require a parking charge to be paid on leaving the vehicle. If a CEO observes a vacating car park user giving their ticket to an arrving car park user the CEO will have observed a contravention. Not for transferring but for non payment of the parking charge by the new arrival when they leave their vehicle.

Ticket machines are very expensive to purchase and maintain. The cost of collecting, counting and banking the revenue is also expensive and so they are slowly but surely being phased out with the introduction of phone and pay.

As far as I am aware, there is no law other than LA's cannot use ANPR cameras to enforce contraventions in their car parks, UNLESS THE DEVICE USED (CAMERA) HAS A CERTIFICATE FROM THE SECRETARY of STATE for TRANSPORT to use it for those purposes. NO CERTIFICATE, NO USE.

Just a small snippet from the BPA British Parking  Association) who's many members are LA's have tried for years to get things altered but have failed.

"We see a fundamental need for government to update road traffic legislation to take account of fast changing technology. It is not so much new technology, but the convergence of technologies which have existed for some time and then being used in environments which are innovative. The Protection of Freedoms Act legitimised the use of ANPR cameras in privately-run car parks, yet local authorities do not have the legislative ability to use this same technology in theirs; a matter we feel needs urgently resolving. Primary legislation used to regulate local authority parking needs to be fit for purpose."

So lets not have any more silly nonsence about the use of ANPR cameras. they are simply not allowed to be used in LA car parks for enforcement purposes.

You still have not pointed out the law that prohibits LA's from using VCA approved/certified ANPR devices in their off street car parks to enforce civil parking contraventions under the Traffic Management Act 2004.

I would not base your argument solely on a BPA extract. The BPA has been wrong before. So the legislation please?

Excellent work Plod. I’m glad I’m not the only one who can see that tickets being non-transferable is clearly stated in the TRO’s. 

Thank you Diana Mond.

As for ANPR I think Major P has got his wires crossed. The Deregulation Act 2015 amended the Traffic Management Act 2004 so that regulations could be made restricting the use of approved devices. However, the amendment only allows for regulations to be made that restrict the use of approved devices when enforcing parking contraventions occurring on a road. Take a look for yourself at newly inserted section 87A

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/20/section/53

Obviously off street car parks are not on a road and so can be enforced using ANPR or CCTV so long as the device used is approved by VCA.

I see there is more than one windup merchant on this site. Approval for ANPR use in car parks has to come from the SofS for Transport not the VCA. VCA only has approval to manufacture.

And 

Thousands of 'rip-off' parking fines dished out in town hall car parks illegally using automatic number plate recognition

• Thousands of drivers have been illegally handed fines of up to £100 
• Many town hall car parks are operating outside the law, ministers say 
• This is because they installed automatic number plate recognition
• System has not been approved and it cannot be used in town halls
• The AA condemned the 'rip-off fines' as 'dodgy' and 'outrageous' 
• Drivers are being encouraged to challenge fines and bring cases to court

So if a person does not accept what you say and politely challenges it they must be a wind up merchant?

I've fully explained why I don't accept what you say and provided the relevant legislation to demonstrate that your view point is not supported by law. If it were supported you would be able to direct me to where the law prohibits LA's using certified approved ANPR devices to enforce their off street car parks. I've asked several times for you to do so but yet you have not. Why not?

The Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) has been appointed to certify approved devices on behalf of the secretary of state. Read parargraph 2.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/other/civil-traffic-enforcement.asp

The extract you quote is taken from the Daily Mail. If you read it in full the use of ANPR by some Town Halls was unlawful because they used ANPR devices that had not been certified as "approved devices". Had they used certified "approved devices" their action would have been lawful.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2960986/Thousands-rip-parking-fines-dished-town-hall-car-parks-illegally-using-automatic-number-plate-recognition.html

If you don't accept what I'm saying then fair enough but if you are going to challenge me on it you ought at least to back it up with something more credible than no context copy and paste.

Plod, You my friend are totally missing the point and that point is ANPR cameras can only be used in off street car parks for enforcement purposes, PROVIDING they have been certified for use in such places by the SofS for Transport. The only legislation that I know of is just that, "BEFORE USE, IT HAS TO BE CERTIFIED

I have cut and pasted much to show you were you are wrong in your assertions that ANPR can be used in off street car parks. I don't make things up if that is what you are implying.

I have asked you questions and you have failed to answer - why?

You have said, "My response was to your general claim that ANPR cannot be used to enforce council owned off street car parks. I demonstrated that it is possible." Demonstrate how that is possible WITHOUT a certificate?

And don't say it is because, "Most (if not all) modern day ANPR's are built to VCA approval requirements because the manufacturers main clients are local authorties and there is no demand for unapproved CCTV/ANPR systems." I know that and I know that ANPR can be used by LA's but not for enforcement purposes. The ANPR cameras that are used to enforce parking contraventions can only be used by private operators.

Read what I have written it is all there. I will print this again:-  "The Protection of Freedoms Act legitimised the use of ANPR cameras in privately-run car parks, yet local authorities do not have the legislative ability to use this same technology in theirs;" Do you believe that or don't you? 

You last post is contradictory. In line 1 and 2 you state that ANPR can be used in LA's off street car parks for enforcement purposes providing it has been certified by the secretary of state (thus making it an approved device). But in lines 10 and 11 you say that LA's cannot use ANPR for enforcement purposes as only private parking companies can use them for enforcement purposes.

For clarity please answer this question: In your opinion can a council enforce their off street car parks under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 using an ANPR device that has been certified/approved by the secretary of state (via the VCA)?

I do not recall seeing any previous questions from you direct to me but I will be happy to answer any questions you may have but in answer to the question asked in your above post:

My opinion and I've been constant all along, is that ANPR can only be used to enforce LA off street car parks under the Traffic Management Act 2004 if the ANPR used is certified by the secretary of state (via the VCA) as an approved device.

Enforcement in LA off street car parks under the Traffic Management Act 2004 using an approved ANPR or CCTV device is made possible by regulation 10/1(a) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/10/made

If your opinion is that LA's cannot use a secretary of state (via the VCA) certified/approved ANPR device for enforcing their off street car parks under the Traffic Management Act 2004 then once again I ask you to direct me to the legislation that prohibits this. It can only be prohibited if there is a law prohibiting it. Please no more extracts, just the actual legislation that the validity of the extracts depend upon.

In 2015 the law was amended so that for on street LA parking enforcement under the Traffic Management Act 2004, approved devices (whether it be CCTV or ANPR) could only be used from 1st April 2015 to enforce parking in bus lanes, bus stop clearways, red routes and school keep clear zig zags. The amendment did not restrict how approved devices (whether they be CCTV or ANPR) could be used for off street parking enforcement under the Traffic Management Act 2004. The amending order is viewable in my post from yesterday at 17:15.

Plod For clarity please answer this question: In your opinion can a council enforce their off street car parks under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 using an ANPR device that has been certified/approved by the secretary of state (via the VCA)? If it has been certified - YES. But the VCA cannot certify anything off it's own back unless the Secretary of State for Transport has made the VCA a power unto themselves, which he has not done regarding the use of ANPR cameras. CCTV can be used in certain circumstances and as I am only concerned with Devon and it's Districts, they have not been authorised to use ANPR in any off street car parks(I don't include Torbay or Plymouth, they are unitary authorities and can act differently if they so wish). But I am still not sure whether Torbay and Plymouth have been given certification to use ANPR in their off Street car parks. They can use CCTV however.

Enforcement in LA off street car parks under the Traffic Management Act 2004 using an approved ANPR or CCTV device is made possible by regulation 10/1(a) And that possibilty derives from the Secretary of State for Transport certifying that device and HE/SHE has not done so yet. You are talking about things that may happen/might happen, it is possible that it could happen.

I want you to show me and everyone else that is looking at this thread where it has happened in Devon, that the SofS for Transport has certified any ANPR cameras for use as an enforcement tool for off street car parks.

If you cannot do that, your arguements are a dead duck.

I've been discussing ANPR generally and the fact that the secretary of state has delegated certification of approved ANPR & CCTV devices to the VCA. They do it in and under his name.

If you were only concerned with DCC & Devon district councils it would have been helpful had you made this clear and specifically said local authorities in Devon cannot enforce their off street car parks using ANPR because they possess no "approved devices" rather than just saying the less specific, local authorities cannot use ANPR to enforce their off street car parks. Had you made your argument specific to DCC & the local districts I would have agreed from the start (if of course it is the case that they possess no approved ANPR devices).

Personally I've no interest in whether any council in Devon has ANPR and if so, whether it qualifies as an "aproved device". I've already said I think it unlikely at this time that they possess it but only a freedom of information request would confirm the position. However as Lisa correctly pointed out, there is nothing to prevent DCC & the local district councils from obtaining an approved ANPR device and using it to enforce their off street car parks under the Traffic Management Act 2004.

I'll leave it to the visitors to this thread to decide if what I've written lacks credibility or as you say, is a dead duck. I don't object to constructive criticism.

Plod, you appeared to me and others, that you are some sort of expert on this subject. It has now become clear to me anyway, that you have had crossed wires and not me.

I general terms, (because I gather information from the correct sources) I always knew that ANPR is not used officially in any off street car park, but I wasn't going to play my hand on that score.

There are many things for LA's to consider before they embark on the use of deploying ANPR for enforcement purposes in their off street car parks. The cost for a start is huge. DPA, RIPA, FOI, and the RTRA are just a few of the many acts they have to consider and the employment of extra staff to protect our liberties. And with all those extra staff, could they justify the cost against less staff to enforce the car park on foot, that is for them to decide and not me.

I have already stopped one authority who tried to circumvent the legislation and cost, by pretending the land/car park was private land. They employed a private parking company hoping that no one would notice what they were doing, well I noticed and the car park has now been taken back in control by that LA and Devon County Council has taken on responsibility to enforce it as the LA concerned could not justify the cost of employing their own staff. A search with the land registry proved it was not private land but regulated land owned by a local authority.

If you have any doubts about who owns what and what they can do with it, then the best place to start is with the land registry. Then you go on from there.

On the 3rd Sept at 18:06 lines 7-8 was your first claim that local authorities cannot enforce anything with ANPR. On 21 Sept at 20:41 in your final paragraph you make the same claim and again on 22nd Sept at 19:00 lines 1-2 and more recent on 5 Jan at 15:16 you claimed approved devices could only be used for on street enforcement. On 6 Jan at 09:29 in your final sentence you once again claim that ANPR cannot be used to enforce local authority off street car parks.

All I've done all along is point out that these claims were not correct because local authorties can enforce their off street car parks under the Traffic Management Act 2004 using ANPR so long as the ANPR used is an "approved device". On 6 Jan at 20:26 line 2 you agreed.

I'll leave it to you and others to decide whose wires were crossed.

Plod And I have told you on many occasions that there has been no approval given by the SofS for Transport. But that did not sink in. All you did was claim that LA's could use ANPR in their car parks, but you never qualified that statement. Yes they can use ANPR for management purposes but not for enfocement and that was the crux of my point when using ANPR.

To my knowledge, there is nowhere in this country where a LA has been given permission to use ANPR cameras in their off street car parks for enforcement purposes. Even on street, Eric Pickles stopped the use of ANPR being used in vans parked at certain locations.

What you say is possible, is one thing, what is actually the situation is another.

Having dealt with LA's for a long time now, I know that what they say is one thing, but reality shows something quite different.

Bye for now.

Nonsense majorp. plod has been consistent throughout and competently qualified his view point with rationale and supporting links. You on the other hand have flip flopped, lacked clarity and provided no supporting links. Anyone who has challenged  you on your view point about ANPR or ticket transferbility  has been insulted which is probably why no one else wants to contribute to this. You've just flip flopped and lacked clarity now in your statement

"yes they can use ANPR for management purposes but not for enforcement and that was the crux of my point when using ANPR"

Once again you generalise and say ANPR can't be used to enforce despite agreeing previously that it can if it's dft approved. If by "they" you mean the councils in devon then you should state this clearly otherwise your argument leads us down a completely different path  from what you intended because other councils in the country might have dft approved ANPR. I've yet to see any evidence from you that shows no council in devon has a dft approved ANPR system. You are the one making this claim so it is for you to back it up and prove it, it's not for plod or anyone else to go to the effort of disproving a claim they are not making.

You say "to my knowledge there is nowhere in this country where a LA has been given permission to use ANPR cameras in their off steet car parks for enforcement purposes" and then go on to tell plod "what you say is possible is one thing, what is actually the situation is another".

It is only to your knowledge that no local authority in the country uses ANPR to enforce car parks, therefore it may not actually be the situation. It could be but you don't know for certain. Even if none currently do use ANPR, they could get dft approved ANPR at any time and start enforcing car parks using it. Reading the links that plod posted, local authorities don't need to obtain permission to use it as the law already gives permission to use dft approved devices (ANPR or circuit TV) for enforcement purposes in car parks and also on the road in limited circumstances.

The above nonsense from lisa needs some clarification.

The only reason ANPR CANNOT be used for enforcement purposes in local authority car parks, is because no SofS for Transport has certified any device to be used for enforcement purposes in LA owned car parks.

Does lisa understand that?

How do I no that, well for years having been in touch with the BHA director, (Patrick Troy) that is the organisation that advises LA's and private parking companies on what they can and cannot do regarding enforcement of their car parks. He has been trying to get any minister of transport to change the law that would allow LA's to use ANPR in their car parks for enforcement purposes, but has failed

First you have to seperate the two because one controls regulated land and the other acts for land owners who's land is not regulated and are are only trying to protect their land from trespass which the government has allowed them to do even using ANPR for enforcement purposes.

lisa went on to say"You say "to my knowledge there is nowhere in this country where a LA has been given permission to use ANPR cameras in their off steet car parks for enforcement purposes" and then go on to tell plod "what you say is possible is one thing, what is actually the situation is another". The reason I say that is this, Any thing is possible even the use of ANPR to enforce parking in LA owned car parks, but it would not be legal to do so because cameras used in LA car parks for enforcement purposes would not be an approved (certified device). Do you understand that?

Lisa then added, " Reading the links that plod posted, local authorities don't need to obtain permission to use it as the law already gives permission to use dft approved devices (ANPR or circuit TV) for enforcement purposes in car parks and also on the road in limited circumstances." You have read that wrong. The dft has not approved (certified) any camera that captures your number plate details (ANPR). That means that if you see any camera in a LA owned car park, then that camera cannot be used for enforcement purposes as it is not an approved (certified) device.

I can have a sign outside of my door saying "beware of dog", it doesn't mean I have a dog. CCTV in operation doesnt mean there is any cctv cameras.

I trust I have made things a little bit clearer for you.

The only thing clear to me is that you say much but back it up with nothing. Let me make this very clear to you. These days if a council wants to purchase CCTV or ANPR devices (if it is their intention to use it for parking enforcement purposes) they can purchase one that has already been approved by the Secretary of State (via VCA) to be used for parking enforcement purposes under the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Manufacturers of these devices are well aware of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2007 and build their devices to the scheduled requirements (the technical specifcations) set by the order. The manufacturer then submits their devices for formal approval. Once approved it can be used for either on street or off street parking enforcement under the Traffic Management Act 2004 by any council that buys it.

Bournemouth Borough Council has an ANPR "approved device" that can be used for parking enforcement under the Traffic Management Act 2004. The approved device certificate number is PADM 058. The device is currently used to enforce bus stops and school keep clear markings. There is no law that prevents  Bournemouth Borough Council from using the approved device to enforce their off street car parks under the Traffic Management Act 2004 should they want to. If you think the law does prohibit this approved ANPR device from being used to enforce Bournemouth's off street car parks under the Traffic Management Act 2004 then show us that law rather than keep making baseless claims and taking us around in circles.

Torbay Borough Council also has approval (reference number PADM 040) from the Secretary of State to enforce parking in their area using an approved ANPR device called Roadflow.

http://www.roadflow.co.uk/Traffic_Enforcement_Solutions/ROADflow_Mobile.aspx

Scroll down and click on Torbay Borough Council to see the approvalhttps://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrIRlrCcltavl0ANB93Bwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTEycDQ2MWhuBGNvbG8DaXIyBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjUxNTFfMQRzZWMDc3I-/RV=2/RE=1515971395/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.gov.uk%2fgovernment%2fuploads%2fsystem%2fuploads%2fattachment_data%2ffile%2f658115%2fla.ods/RK=2/RS=4ZhM7n5duA1zFGUxPhAgsWr56oc-

Plod, great effort on your part, but I fear it’ll be dismissed as “nonsense” because the riddle he was posing was no doubt different to the one you’ve provided definitive answers for.

Do keep up!  No wonder so many councils etc get ground into submission by his relentless tongue-twisted crusades!

plod you are wrong! and Diana Mond doesn't like the truth.

How do I know plod is wrong? Well having dealt with such matters for years, I have accumulated much information from official sources.

I am not going to point you or anyone else to the relevant legislation that forbids LA's from using ANPR to enforce their car parks. In the cool light of day, you explain to me and everyone else that seems to have been sucked in by what you say, How it would be possible to enforce LA owned car parks (that are regulated) using ANPR? But I will paste in part of a recent letter which I obtained to back up many arguements such as yours that have no credibility.

Date:
4 March 2015

Dear Mr Lidington

Thank you for your email of 24 February to Oliver Morley about the disclosure of DVLA data to a local authority for use with their ANPR system for car park
enforcement. I have been asked to reply.
DVLA is able to disclose vehicle keeper data to Local Authorities for their parking enforcement activities that take place under the Traffic Management Act 2004 (“TMA”).
You asked about the legislation that applies. I can confirm that the relevant legislation can be found in Regulation 27(1)(a) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 that states
“The Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use –

iii) by a local authority in England and Wales, for any purpose connected with its activities as an enforcement authority within the meaning of Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.”

@page { margin: 2cm } p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }

The power allowing the Secretary of State to make data available in these circumstances is a discretionary one.

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 state that Local Authorities may impose penalty charge notices if there is evidence of a parking contravention either from information given by a civil enforcement officer as to conduct observed by that officer or evidence recorded on an approved device. An approved device is defined in s92 TMA as a device of a description specified in an order made by the appropriate national authority. ANPR is not currently an approved device and therefore Local Authorities cannot use such devices as sole evidence of a parking contravention for enforcement under TMA.
DVLA is therefore currently not able to disclose vehicle keeper data where Local
Authorities are using ANPR for parking enforcement under the TMA. Robert Goodwill wrote to Local Authorities on 16 September 2014 to expIain this. I also have the letter from Robert Goodwill which explains the difference between contract law (which is used by private operators) and civil law which is used by all LA'sSo lets have no more nonsense about it being possible to use ANPR to enforce LA car parks. Anything is possible, but at the moment they can't enforce their car parks using ANPR.

I'll leave it to others to decide which of us has best demonstrated credibility. Meanwhile here is evidence of a ANPR approved device that is authorised for use in the enforcement of civil parking contraventions by Bournemouth Borough Council in their enforcement area. Is there anyone else other than majorp who thinks no ANPR devices have been approved by the Secretary of State for enforcing on street and off street parking contraventions under the Traffic Management Act 2004?

And another. I could keep going. Roadflow is a ANPR device. http://www.roadflow.co.uk/Traffic_Enforcement_Solutions.aspx

Nonsense! Stop using facts!

And I am telling you plod that what you have placed on this site about Plymouth does not say anything about car parks. I am begining to think that you cannot read or at least understand what is written.

If you try and answer the poser I gave you as to how ANPR could work in off street P&D car parks, you may make everyone happy. And as what you have posted is 2010, you may find that Plymouth has been stopped from using said ANPR in their vans for parking enforcement.

You keep throwing up adverts from parking companies, lets have some actual proof that the SofS for Transport has approved ANPR for enforcement purposes in P&D car parks.

I shall ring the DFT tomorrow and ask them personally, if the SofS has approved any ANPR cameras for enforcement purposes in P&D LA owned car parks, since my last letters from them.

I know what the answer will be. and until you can work out why it is not possible to use ANPR cameras in off street P&D car parks that are owned by LA's for enforcement purposes, you will remain with your head buried in the sand. 

And as plod has brought in Plymouth (again no mention of enforcing car parks).

Plymouth City Council uses ANPR cameras to automatically enforce bus lanes 
and bus gates within the city of Plymouth. Fair and consistent enforcement 
has helped in reducing delays and journey times for buses, improving 
punctuality, enhancing the attractiveness of public transport and helping 
to make the roads safer for road users and pedestrians. In addition, 
mobile approved devices are being used to enforce parking restrictions 
outside of schools, zig-zag markings around pedestrian crossing, bus stops 
and where parking restrictions are used to provide road safety, maintain 
traffic flow and reduce congestion. They are not used to enforce parking 
restrictions, where waiting is permitted or a Blue Badge holder is allowed 
to park.

With reference to the last sentence that you pasted. The whole point is that at the point in time that the paragraph you pasted was originally written, they weren’t used there, but they *could* have been used then and *could* still be used now. They have the legal right to use approved devices should they wish.

I’ll repeat that for you - they have the legal right to use them.

You’ve said all along that Local Authorities cannot use them, but you’ve repeatedly failed to provide any supporting evidence for your assertion. In fact, you’ve point blank refused to provide it.  Probably because you’ve realised that you’re wrong, but are too stubborn to admit it. 

That's right Diana Mond. The DfT approve devices that can be used for civil parking enforcement purposes under the Traffic Management Act 2004. Civil parking enforcement applies off street as equally as it does on street and therefore the approved device can be used for either on street and off street parking enforcement. Of course a council does not have to use their approved device for both and most only use it on street because most off street contraventions relate to the display of a pay and display ticket and CCTV/ANPR devices that are in a fixed position cannot possibly detect and read these unless the car is parked right under their noses. The DfT don't approve devices for off street and on street separately. They simply approve a device to be used for civil parking enforcement purposes under the Traffic Management Act 2004. Therefore the DfT will not know where the devices they approve are used. Councils tend not to use them off street because the Secretary of State's statutory guidance says approved devices should only be used where enforcement is either difficult, sensitive or enforcement by a civil enforcement officer is not practical. Enforcing an off street car park is not usually difficult or a sensitive issue but it is sometimes not practical to use a CEO such as late at night and so the option to use ANPR is there if a council wants to make use of it.

Thread continues here - https://www.dawlish.com/thread/details/45946